These regional divisions have several effects on U.S. presidential
elections.First, the parties seek
geographically balanced tickets (Swauger 1980).Democrats, knowing that they already have strong support in the
Northeast, are hesitant to place a Northeasterner on their party’s ticket.Bill Clinton, an Arkansas native, and Al Gore, a senator from
Tennessee, were nominated to the Democratic ticket in 1992 in an effort to win
back some of the southern states, which were increasingly going Republican.This worked to some degree, as Clinton was able to capture Arkansas,
Tennessee, Louisiana, and Georgia in 1992 and Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana
in 1996.It did not work as well for Al Gore in his bid for the
presidency in 2000, as he lost every Southern state, including his home state of
Tennessee (CNN 2000).A possible
reason for this may be that his running mate was Connecticut’s Senator Joe
Lieberman.Picking Lieberman, a Jew
and a Northeasterner, likely hurt Gore as Jews and Northeasterners were likely
to vote Democratic anyway.

Regional divisions also effect where the candidates campaign prior to the
election.Candidates are unlikely
to spend time in regions they feel that they cannot win and equally unlikely to
spend time in regions in which they feel they already have won.They instead focus on swing regions, like the Midwest, and
“toss-up” states.These toss-up
states are often located on the border between regions, containing
characteristics of two or more regions.In
2000, some examples of the toss-up states were Florida (not part of the core
south), Tennessee (between the South and Midwest), Pennsylvania (between the
Northeast and Midwest) Missouri (between the South, Midwest, and Mountain West,
and Iowa (between the Midwest and Mountain West).Many states, especially those within the core of a region, are thus
neglected by campaigns (Swauger 1980).

The regional voting divisions in presidential elections also point to
deeper divisions between these regions.Since
the origins of the United States, animosity has existed between the North and
the South.This animosity reached
its breaking point in the Civil War, but almost 140 years later, it still exists
today.Voters in the North, as well
as voters on West Coast, place an emphasis on “environmental, consumer, and
lifestyle issues” (Speel 1999, 169).Voters
in the South and Mountain West, on the other hand, focus on “patriotism, high
defense spending, and the promotion of conservative religious values” (Speel
1999, 169).Northeasterners and
those living on the West Coast are likely to view Southerners negatively.“White Southerners are, until proven otherwise, traditional, backwards,
obsessed with the past, friendly, violent, racist, and polite” (Ayers et al,
1996, 66).Those in the South and
Mountain West are likely to view those in the Northeast and West Coast
negatively, labeling them as liberal and immoral (Speel 1999).

These conflicts between regions
manifest themselves in the observed voting patterns.Historical as well as contemporary voting patterns show that
a political party cannot be successful in both the North and the South.“If a political party is going to represent these Northern Yankees with
their liberal views, social tolerance, airs of cultural superiority, and
capitalist dominance, the South wants a different party to vote for.And if a political party is going to represent Southern views on the
preservation of a traditional social order, militarism, perceived tolerance for
prejudice, and cultural lack of sophistication, then those Northern Yankees are
going to cast their vote elsewhere” (Speel 1999, 173).